November 28 & 29, 2005, Sacramento, California. Remarks b

1

• California Secretary of State Voting Systems
• Testing Summit
• November 28 29, 2005, Sacramento, California
• Remarks by Kim Alexander, President,
• California Voter Foundation
• www.calvoter.org
• Session 6 Security/Paper Trails/Accountability
• For What Purpose Should AVVPATs Be Used?

2

• The Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail serves two
  purposes
• 1) To give a voter confidence that his or her
  own ballot was accurately recorded by an
  electronic voting machine
• 2) To give election officials a meaningful audit
  trail they can use to verify the accuracy of
  software vote counts.

3

• Why we need to publicly audit the results
• Increased computerization of the voting and
  vote-counting process has reduced transparency in
  elections. A manual count of a subset of ballots
  or VVPATs provides the public with a reasonable
  degree of confidence that the final software vote
  count is accurate.
• If the paper audit trail that the voter verified
  is not used to verify the overall election
  results, then it will be possible for the paper
  record to reflect one set of votes while the
  electronic record reflects a different set of
  votes without ever being detected.

4

• Two reforms are needed
• 1) Require that a voter-verified paper audit
  trail accompany every electronic ballot
• 2) Require that a public audit of the software
  vote count be conducted prior to certifying the
  election results.
• n Use of the VVPAT should not be limited to
  recounts, or to cases where the margin is close.
  Public audits of software vote counts must be a
  routine step in the certification process,
  because
• n Public audits provide voters with an
  opportunity to see for themselves that software
  vote counts are accurate and reliable.
• n Pre-and post election testing, and other
  security measures such as parallel monitoring are
  good, but not good enough, because these methods
  deny ordinary voters the ability to have the same
  level of confidence in the process that
  inspectors enjoy.

5

• Features needed for meaningful public auditing
• 1) Require a statistically significant sample
  size for the manual count currently, the sample
  size varies in states from 1 10 percent.
• 2) Select the precincts to be counted at random
  and make the selection process itself open to
  public observation.
• 3) Prepare the procedures for conducting the
  public audit and make them available to the
  public prior to the election.
• 4) Set the date for the public audit well enough
  in advance to provide ample time to publicize it
  (at least one week).
• 5) Publicize the date, time and location of the
  public audit on the election agencys web site
  and through a media advisory.

6

• Status of VVPAT and public software vote count
  audits
• in the states
• 25 states have enacted voter-verified paper audit
  trail requirements.
• 11 states enacted laws this year that require or
  strengthen public auditing of election
  results
• California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii,
  Illinois, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North
  Carolina, Washington and West Virginia. (One
  state, Kentucky, has a pre-existing manual count
  law.)